It has ended its push to get a speedier ruling out of the Marin Superior Court.

The county has asked for a reconsideration of Judge Paul Haakenson’s ruling that a lawsuit that challenges the county’s rushed $8.8 million acquisition of the San Geronimo Golf Course and intent to close it has merit.

The county endorsed the purchase late last year, with the board declaring itself exempt from state environmental planning rules that would require it to consider potential impacts and seek and address public comment.

San Geronimo Advocates, a grassroots collection of property owners and golfers, filed a lawsuit challenging the board’s action, and Haakenson’s ruling has held up state funding the county’s been counting on to complete the sale.

The state’s rules are clear that projects need to have environmental clearances to qualify for funding. Although the acquisition had received preliminary approval from the state, Haakenson’s ruling put it in limbo.

Hoping to apply for another round of funding, the board pleaded its case to another judge, as Haakenson was out of town, only to be told it needed to await Haakenson’s return.

Now the case has to wait until October, nearly a year since the board exempted its deal from state environmental rules that Haakenson says the county should have followed.

In fact, had the county done what Haakenson said it should have, an environmental review could have been completed, with public review and hearings.

Preparation of a “negative declaration,” a process short of a full-blown environmental impact report, could have been finished in around two months.

Haakenson’s ruling was signed on June 28 and the hearing on the lawsuit isn’t scheduled until Oct. 12.

The board has had ample time to do the job right, without the cost of fighting the lawsuit.

The supervisors’ fight misstep was rushing to complete the purchase, even amid considerable public outcry and the public left in the dark on important deliberations among staff and supervisors behind closed doors.

Supervisor Dennis Rodoni, who championed the deal, said the process had to be rushed in order to meet the landlord’s deadline. Supporters’ arguments that the purchase prevents intensive development ignore the long-held policy outlined in the county’s general plan that makes preservation of the golf course as a recreational and visible asset a top priority.

The county’s hurry-up strategy has proved costly, both in the growth of public cynicism toward the board and the loss of a multi-million-dollar state grant.

Board members underscored their purchase and plans to close the golf course with the argument that state funds would help cover most of the $8.8 million price tag. That promise is in limbo, thanks to the lawsuit that challenged the county to make its decision without sidestepping even a modicum of prior and public environmental review.

In recent years, the county has had a poor track record when it comes to complying with state environmental rules. This case is among those the county has had to fight.

Time is ticking and legal costs are rising. It seems prudent that instead of waging an extensive and costly legal battle it could lose, supervisors should publicly order county staff to prepare a “negative declaration” and hold the public process it should have started last fall, more than 10 months ago.